Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Assessment of new solar radiation nowcasting methods based on sky-camera

and satellite imagery
Francisco J. Rodríguez-Benítez a,b , Miguel López-Cuesta a,b , Clara Arbizu-Barrena a,b ,
María M. Fernández-León c , Miguel Á. Pamos-Ureña a,b , Joaquín Tovar-Pescador a,b ,
Francisco J. Santos-Alamillos d , David Pozo-Vázquez a,b ,∗
a
Andalusian Institute for Earth System Research IISTA-CEAMA, Spain
b
Department of Physics, University of Jaen, 23071, Jaen, Spain
c
Energy Management, Area of Meteorology, Abengoa Solar, Seville, Spain
d
Department of Applied Physics, University of Cadiz, Polytechnic School of Engineering, Algeciras, Spain

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This work proposes and evaluates methods for extending the forecasting horizon of all-sky imager (ASI)-
Solar energy based solar radiation nowcasts and estimating the uncertainty of these predictions. In addition, we evaluated
Solar irradiance nowcasting procedures for improving the temporal resolution and latency of satellite-imagery-derived solar nowcasts. Based
Short-term solar irradiance forecasting
on these contributions, we assessed the reliability of ASIs and satellite-derived solar radiation nowcasts, with
All-sky imagers (ASI)
1-min time-resolution and up-to-90-min ahead. The study was conducted in a location in Southern Spain using
MSG satellite images
a set of cloudy days, specifically selected as representative of the most challenging conditions regarding solar
radiation nowcasting. The results reveal that the use of ASI-based models provide low benefits compared to
the use of satellite-based models for point solar radiation nowcasting. Given the frequency of occurrence of the
different sky types in the study area, the results suggest that the use of a simple smart persistence algorithm,
in combination with a low-resolution satellite nowcasting model could be an adequate choice, avoiding the
challenges associated with the use of ASIs.

1. Introduction 1.1. Solar forecasting methods

Considerable effort has been made along the last decades to develop
solar energy as a real alternative to the conventional energy generation
system. There are two main technologies: solar thermal electricity
(STE) and solar photovoltaic (PV) energy; many countries have already
reached a notable solar share in their energy mixes, and an important
growth is expected in the near future [1].
Contrary to conventional power, solar electricity generation is con-
ditioned by weather, thus being highly intermittent. The solar cycle and
the intermittency of transient clouds and aerosol lead to a considerable
variability of the yield of solar power plants on a wide range of tem-
poral scales, particularly in minutes-to-hours. This poses serious issues
regarding solar power plant management and yield integration into the
electricity grid [2,3]. Prior knowledge of the expected power output
and its variability can help mitigate these problems [4,5]. Therefore,
the development of accurate solar radiation forecasting methods has
become an essential research topic [6].
Solar forecasting methods can be classified according to three fore-
casting horizons: nowcasting (mostly related to the first hour), short-
term forecasting (which accounts for forecasts up to 6 h ahead) and
forecasting (forecasts of up to days ahead). The techniques and proce-
dures associated with these methods, as well as the spatial and temporal
resolutions of the resulting forecasts, are essentially different [7–9].
Nowcasting accounts for methods aimed at providing solar fore-
casts for the next minutes ahead, with very high spatial and temporal
resolutions. The reference methods are based on the use of all-sky
imagers (ASI) [10]. Notably, ASI nowcasts are obtained by processing
consecutive images captured by these devices. The comparison of the
images allows deriving the so-called Cloud Motion Vectors (CMVs) of
the clouds. Given the CMVs field, the future position of the clouds can
be estimated by simple advection (frozen cloud hypothesis). Then, a
clear-sky model is used to compute the Global Horizontal Irradiance
(GHI) and the Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI) predictions. Nowcast-
ing horizons depend on the velocity of cloud displacement and their

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Physics, University of Jaen, 23071, Jaen, Spain.
E-mail address: dpozo@ujaen.es (D. Pozo-Vázquez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116838
Received 27 November 2020; Received in revised form 5 March 2021; Accepted 16 March 2021
Available online 9 April 2021
0306-2619/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al.
base height. ASI-based methods may provide solar nowcasts of very
high spatial (order of meters) and temporal (order of minutes) reso-
lutions [11]. The latency of the forecasts may also be very high (about
1 min or even higher). ASI-based nowcasting has gained notable atten-
tion in the last decade [12–15]. Nevertheless, its reliability is relatively
low [16], since the processes involved in deriving the nowcasts are
prone to many uncertainties [17].
Reference methods to obtain short-term solar predictions are based
on satellite imagery processing [18]. Cloud index (CI) images, com-
puted by the Heliosat-2 method [19], are firstly derived from the geo-
stationary satellite Meteosat Second Generation (MSG) [20] operated
by the European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological
Satellites (EUMETSAT). Then, consecutive CI images are compared to
derive the CMVs, revealing the underlying atmospheric flow. Finally, a
clear-sky model is used to derive the solar radiation forecasts [21]. The-
oretically, the forecast horizon can be extended beyond 6 h, although,
in practice, after 4–6 h, the forecasting skill of these methods is low
compared to other approaches based on Numerical Weather Prediction
(NWP) models [22]. Satellite short-term forecasts have a typical spatial
resolution of a few kilometers and a temporal resolution and latency of
15 min.
As solar radiation measured datasets are progressively available,
data-driven forecasting methods have become increasingly popular.
These methods are applicable to all forecasting horizons, although they
are mostly used in 1-h-ahead forecasting studies. For instance, Amaro
et al. [23] used real-time measurements from a network of irradiance
sensors to obtain spatio-temporal correlations from which to derive
short-term GHI forecasts. Similar approaches have been proposed, using
real-time power data from a set of PV-systems [24]. A main drawback
of these methods is that they are constrained by the availability of
measured data. Recently, the use of satellite-derived information has
been proposed to overcome this problem [25].
1.2. ASI versus satellite image-based nowcasting methods
Despite its still limited accuracy, ASI-based solar nowcast has proved
its usefulness in several applications, such as the management of STE
plants [26] or diesel-PV-battery off-grid power systems [27,28]. In a
recent work, Anagnostos et al. [29] proposed the use of ASI-based
nowcasts to provide PV generation forecasts for grid integration.
Short-term forecasting has also been successfully used for the man-
agement of STE [30] and PV plants [31]. Other fruitful applications
are the scheduling of storage integrated with PV systems for self-
consumption [32]; the management of microgrids [33]; the participa-
tion of PV [34,35] and STE [36] plants in the energy market and power
grid operation [37].
In the last years, the interest in solar nowcasting has increased, due
to the expected massive deployment of solar PV energy. For instance,
the management of PV systems at the residential scale requires high
spatial and temporal resolution of PV generation forecasts [38]. In
general, PV forecasts are important to manage distribution networks,
micro grids and smart homes, especially when active demand, storage
and electric vehicles may coexist with PV generation [39].
Solar nowcasting can be derived either from ASI or satellite images
(in addition to data-driven methods). Although these methods are
qualitatively similar, the characteristics of computed nowcasting show
significant differences related to the spatial and temporal resolution
of the images and their spatial coverage. ASI-based nowcasting can
provide high spatial and temporal (1 min) nowcasts, with high latency
(1 min), but the temporal horizon is limited to less than 15 min in
most cases (below the first forecasting horizon of the satellite-based
nowcasting, which is 15 min). Some attempts have been made to extend
the nowcasting horizon. For instance, Peng et al. [40] proposed a
method for cloud detection and tracking based on machine learning
procedures applied to images reported by several ASIs. A byproduct
2
Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838
of the procedure is an expanded cloud view area, larger than those
obtained by a single camera.
On the other hand, satellite-based nowcasting may provide predic-
tions at longer forecasting horizons and over extensive areas. Neverthe-
less, its spatial resolution and latency are coarser than in the ASI case.
For instance, for the images of MSG standard visible channels 1 and
2, the nominal spatial resolution is about 3 × 3 km in the nadir, with
a latency of 15 min [20]. The latency is limited by the time needed
to acquire a full Earth disc image by the SEVIRI device, on board the
MSG satellite. The SEVIRI device has an additional broadband high-
resolution visible (HRV) channel, which covers only a part of the Earths
full disc, allowing for a higher nominal spatial resolution (1 × 1 km
in the nadir). Sirch et al. [41] used MSG HRV images to derive high
resolution DNI nowcasts. Galluci et al. [42] reported that the use of
HRV images provides enhanced solar irradiance estimates. Thus far, the
use of HRV images for solar nowcasting has not been properly assessed.
1.3. Research objective
To summarize, ASIs and satellite images can be used to derive
solar nowcasts, with both approaches presenting some advantages and
drawbacks. Moreover, the characteristics of these methods make it
difficult to compare them to each other. The main contributions of this
work are:
1. The proposal of two new methods for extending the temporal
horizon of the ASI-based nowcasting up to 90 min ahead, match-
ing that of the satellite-based predictions. The methodology is
based on the synergetic use of a set of three co-located ASIs.
2. The proposal of a new approach aimed at increasing (up to
1 min) the temporal resolution and latency of the satellite-based
nowcasting, matching the latency of ASI-based predictions. The
method is intended both for the MSG 1 and 2 (low resolution)
and HRV (high resolution) channels.
3. The assessment of potential advantages of using HRV satellite
images, instead of more standard low-resolution ones, for solar
nowcasting.
4. The assessment of the relative performance of ASI and satellite-
based GHI and DNI nowcasts under cloudy skies.
The study was conducted in the area of a STE plant located in
Southern Spain, using data of a set of days covering different cloudy-sky
conditions. The ASI and the two satellite approaches were benchmarked
using a smart persistence model. To the best of our knowledge, this is
the first study to make a direct comparison between ASI and satellite-
based nowcasting. A study is also carried out on the performance of the
different models in the forecasting of the PV solar energy.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the ground
and remote sensing dataset used. Section 3 presents the methods and
the assessment procedure. In Sections 4 and 5 the results are presented
and discussed, respectively. Finally, in Section 6, some conclusions are
proposed.
2. Experimental setup and database
All the measurements and ASI images used in this study were
collected at the Abengoa Solar Platform of Solúcar (6.25 W, 37.44
N) (Fig. 1). The platform is located in the southwest of the Iberian
Peninsula, near Seville, with an average altitude of 40 meters above
sea level. It includes STE and PV commercial plants (Abengoa Solar
operation of 183 MW), pilot plants and research laboratories. The
dataset covers 43 days from June to October 2015 and includes ASI
images collected simultaneously by three cameras, cloud base heights
(CBHs) derived from a ceilometer and GHI and DNI measurements from
the validation station. Figs. 1 and 2a show the location of the different
measurement devices within the platform.
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al.
Fig. 1. Study area and location of the plant (top left Figure). Spatial arrangement of
the three cameras, the ceilometer and the evaluation radiometric station.
Along this work, the nowcasts were evaluated on a set of days char-
acterized by different cloudy-sky conditions. To this end, the samples
of the dataset were divided according to the type of clouds observed in
the ASI images at the time the forecast was issued.
Clouds can be classified according to different criteria (base height,
sky coverage, meteorological process, etc.). In this article, the classifi-
cation criterion used refers to the influence of the clouds on the solar
radiation at the earth surface. For the DNI, cloud-related attenuation is
a function of the cloud type, CBHs and sun zenithal angle [43]. For the
GHI, attenuation depends, additionally, on the sky fraction covered by
the clouds [44]. In this work, the dataset is divided into altocumulus,
cirrocumulus, cumulus and stratocumulus skies, which are part of the
cumuliform cloud type, i.e., clouds with a certain vertical structure
that appears in patches in the sky and are caused by convection. An
additional group named multi-cloud sky conditions, and which account
for cases when several types of clouds are observed in the same image,
was also evaluated. The samples were classified based on the ASI
images and the ceilometer information. The shape of cumuliform clouds
and, in some cases, their relatively fast movement, make solar radiation
nowcasting specially challenging when the sky is covered with these
cloud types. The next subsections describe each feature of the dataset.
2.1. Ground-based GHI and DNI measurements
The nowcasting method was assessed using one-minute GHI and
DNI measurements collected along 43 days from June to October 2015
at the radiometric station indicated in Fig. 1. The total number of sam-
ples used in the study was 12,572. This station includes an Eppley Black
& White, Model 8-48 pyranometer and a WMO Secondary Standard/ISO
Highest Precision Eppley NIP pyrheliometer. Raw data are quality-
check analyzed according to the procedures defined by [45], related to
physically possible and extremely rare limits. Raw data corresponding
to a solar zenith angle greater than 75◦ are discarded by this procedure.
2.2. ASI system
The ASI system consists of a set of three commercial low-cost video-
surveillance cameras (model Axis M3007-PV) (Figs. 1 and 2a). The
distances between ASI cameras are 1, 1.84, and 2.4 km. The distances
from the ASI cameras to the radiometric evaluation station are 3.4,
4.2, and 3.6 km. Images are taken simultaneously every minute. The
cameras provide raw (2592 × 1944 pixels) JPEG RGB image files.
3
Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838
2.3. Ceilometer
Fifteen-second CBH raw measurements are collected from a Jenop-
tik CHM 15k Nimbus ceilometer (see location in Fig. 1) configured
to discern up to three different cloud layers. The procedure described
in [46] is applied to derive one-minute CBH values. This procedure
uses a 10min-moving-average window in order to palliate the CBH
measurement fluctuations of the raw ceilometer signal.
2.4. Satellite retrievals
MSG SEVIRI standard visible channels 1, 2 and HRV images, all with
a latency of 15 min, are used to derive satellite nowcasts. Raw images
are transformed according to an azimuthal equidistant projection. As a
result, the channels 1 and 2 images have a spatial resolution of 5 × 5
km, while that of the HRV channel images is 1 × 1 km.
CI estimates are derived from channels 1 and 2 images based on the
Heliosat-2 method [19]. A similar adapted procedure is applied to the
HRV channel in order to derive the CI images.
3. Methods
This section describes the different methods used to derive the now-
casts. The section presents, separately, the methods used for deriving
the ASI-based nowcasts, the satellite-based nowcasts and the evaluation
procedure. At the end of the section, the methodology used to evaluate
the performance of the models in the forecasting of the solar PV energy
is described.
3.1. ASI methods
The procedures involved in ASI-based GHI and DNI nowcasts are
explained in this subsection. Fig. 2 provides a visual guideline of the
different steps of these procedures.
3.1.1. ASI setup and image distortion correction estimation
The location of the three ASIs, the ceilometer and the evaluation
station is displayed in Fig. 2a. In order to allocate the image features,
the relative position of the ASIs has to be known. The captured raw im-
ages contain suitable information just from the area around the center
of the camera-sensor (hereinafter called camera center). In addition,
this information is captured mostly with a radial distortion, which
makes pixels close to the camera center account for a smaller area of
the sky than those close to the edges (see top of Fig. 2b). There are
different approaches to estimate and correct this distortion [47]. In this
study, we used the method proposed by Marquez and Coimbra [12].
This method relates the theoretical sun zenith angle and the distance
between the camera center and sun center position in the raw image to
derive a polynomial transformation. Since the three ASIs share the same
hardware, the same polynomial distortion model was used. However,
due to potential differences in the mechanical assembling, the camera
center and the area of useful information in the raw images turned out
to be slightly different.
3.1.2. Image georeferentiation
The purpose of the georeferentiation method is two-fold: to crop a
reliable portion of the distortion-corrected sky image and to derive a
size estimation for each pixel (length/pixel ratio). In the raw image,
each pixel is linked to a radius–zenith angle position, with the radius
being the distance from each pixel to the camera center. With the aim of
correcting the radial distortion, this radius is transformed by applying
the conversion explained in the previous section. The procedure, graph-
ically described in Fig. 2b, has two constrains. Firstly, due to the radial
distortion, the accuracy of the transformation model decreases with the
distance from the camera center. Secondly, due to the geometric issues,
clouds might hide the information behind them. This effect increase
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al.
Fig. 2. Outline of the proposed ASI-based GHI and DNI nowcasting procedures. The procedures can be decomposed in six sequential steps: (a) raw measures gathering, (b) image
georeferentiation, (c) cloud detections by image segmentation, (d) CMV field computations, and finally, (e) DNI and (f) GHI forecasting.
near the horizon where, for instance, the space between clouds might
not be shown under broken sky conditions. In order to palliate these
limitations, the distortion correction is only applied for a maximum
field of view (FOV) angle of 130◦ . The length/pixel ratio calculation
does not depend on the raw-image distortion-correction step. To derive
this ratio, we applied the trigonometric relations shown at the bottom
of Fig. 2b. Note the dependence of the length/pixel ratio on the CBH
estimation, which was measured based on the ceilometer information.
3.1.3. Cloud detection
The following step in the procedure (Fig. 2c) is the classification of
each pixel in the image as being cloudy, clear sky or null value. The
latter is reserved for burned pixels, null areas and situations where the
distinction between cloudy and clear sky pixels might not be possible.
The cloud detection method here used is based on Li et al. [48].
Firstly, this method transforms the input color cloud image into a
normalized blue/red channel ratio image. Then, it identifies the ra-
tio image as either unimodal or bimodal according to its standard
deviation. Finally, a minimum cross entropy thresholding algorithm
is applied to the bimodal images. As a result, a threshold value is
obtained, which allows identifying cloud-free and cloudy pixels in the
image. The advantage of this method is that the threshold is not fixed
beforehand, but derived specifically for each image. This cloud detec-
tion methodology has proved to be one of the best [49]. In this work,
this method was applied with two modifications. Firstly, a normalized
blue–red difference score was used, instead of the normalized blue/red
ratio. Secondly, the threshold between cloudy and clear sky pixels
was obtained by applying a two-group K-Means clustering algorithm,
instead of using the cross entropy algorithm. This method is pixel-
dependent and applies to those pixels which are not labeled a priori
as null values.
Fig. 3 shows the results of the cloud detection procedure for a
stratocumulus cloudy-sky image. Fig. 3a shows the raw image. Null
4
Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838
values, corresponding mostly to the sun, appear in black. This is a clear
case of a bimodal image, as observed in the histogram image (Fig. 3b).
The high color contrast in the free areas between clouds eases the cloud
detection procedure. The methodology applied to this image provides
a slightly positive threshold value (vertical red line Fig. 3b), which
clearly separates the cloudy pixels from the cloud-free pixels. The final
cloud analysis is displayed in Fig. 3c. Similarly, Fig. 4 shows the cloud
detection procedure for a cirrocumulus sky image. The performance
of the cloud detection produce for this type of skies is particularly
valuable. As observed in Fig. 4a, the color contrast in some areas of
the raw image is relatively low, making the cloud detection procedure
challenging for this type of skies. Nevertheless, the method provides an
appropriate threshold value (Fig. 4b), which results in a realistic cloud
analysis image (Fig. 4c).
3.1.4. Cloud motion vector for all-sky camera images
The CMV method estimates the cloud displacement through the
comparison of two consecutive images (Fig. 2d). There are different
approaches to derive the CMV field. In this study, we used the Deep
Flow algorithm [50]. This method combines an approach for large
displacement optical flow [51] with a matching algorithm. As a result,
each vector within the resulting CMV field represents the displacement
suffered by the pixel in the input images. The Deep Flow approach
is independently applied to the grayscale distortion-corrected pair of
images captured by each camera. Thus, for each observation, three
CMV fields are computed. However, due to the relatively limited view
area of the sky covered by the cameras, the use of a single global vector
seems to be the best approach. This single vector is computed as the
average vector from the most populated group resulting from a 2-group
K-Means clustering algorithm (Fig. 2d) applied to the three CMV fields.
This single vector is considered as CMV for each pixel of the three
images. Fig. 5 shows an example of CMV field.
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al. Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838

Fig. 3. Example of the cloud detection algorithm results corresponding to a stratocumulus cloud sky type registered at 2015-06-15 14:47 UTC. (a) Raw image along with the pixels
labeled as null values (in black). (b) The normalized histogram with the threshold value (red line). (c) Final cloud detection image with cloudy pixels (blue represents cloud-free
pixels). The total cloud fraction (CF) value of the image is displayed at the top of the figure.

Fig. 4. As in Fig. 3 although in this case for a cirrocumulus cloud sky image registered at 2015-07-01 14:48 UTC.

Fig. 5. (a) Example of a CMVs field derived from the camera images. Red crosses
indicate non-valid pixels. Image correspond at 2015-06-15 13:00 UTC.
3.1.5. GHI and DNI nowcasting
For each sample, 1-min-time resolution GHI and DNI 90-min-ahead
nowcasts are computed. Only valid simultaneous forecasts from the
three ASIs were evaluated.
The DNI nowcasting procedure is outlined in Fig. 2e. A DNI nowcast
is directly derived as the product of the clear-sky DNI estimation and (1
- CF), where CF is a cloud fraction value. The European Solar Radiation
Atlas (ESRA) clear-sky irradiation model [52], complemented by the
monthly Linke turbidity parameter [53], is used to derive the clear-
sky estimation. The CF value is computed as the ratio of the numbers
of cloudy pixels to the total amount of valid pixels inside a certain
sun-shape area, computed on the distortion-corrected cloud-detection
image. The position and shape of that area depends on three param-
eters: the sun position, the relative location of the evaluation station
from the camera, and the forecasting horizon. Note that, conceptually,
only the pixels of the images located in the trajectory from the sun rays
to the station location affect the DNI forecasts. Thus, for each single
camera, at the time that the forecast is issued (i.e., when the image
is captured), the area of interest is located just over the evaluation
station. To derive the DNI forecasts, this area is moved according to
the forecasting horizon, the future sun positions and the global vector
of displacement (Fig. 2e). Despite the fact that the relative position of
the evaluation station from the camera is fixed, the amount of pixels
in the area of interest changes between nowcasting events according to
the length/pixel ratio of the image, thereby according to the CBH.
GHI nowcasts are derived following the procedure proposed by
Urquhart et al. [54]. This method, graphically described in Fig. 2f,
uses the GHI measurements registered for 30 min before the nowcast is
issued. Firstly, at the time each forecasts is issued, the clearness-index
(𝐾𝑐 ) values for the previous 30 min are computed. These values are
obtained for every minute as the ratio of the GHI measurements to
the clear-sky GHI estimation. Then, by means of a K-Means clustering
algorithm, two groups are obtained and the centroids of each group
are selected as representative 𝐾𝑐 values. If the CF value is greater or
equal (lower) to 0.4, the lowest (highest) 𝐾𝑐 value is selected. Finally,
the GHI nowcast is computed as the product of the representative 𝐾𝑐
and the corresponding clear-sky GHI estimation (the latter also derived
from the ESRA model).
3.1.6. Combining the three camera nowcasts
Following the procedures described above, GHI and DNI nowcasts
are obtained independently for each of the three cameras. The use-
fulness of having three independent ASI-based nowcasts was explored
in this work. To this end, firstly, we tested two different approaches

5
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al. Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838

Fig. 6. Outline of the forecasting procedure based on the three ASIs. The figure show the images captured by three cameras at 2015-07-31 10:35 UTC. The orange circle shows
the sun position and the area considered to derive the DNI nowcast. The upper-most green dot shows the location of the evaluation station in each image. This green dot is
delimited by a green circle that accounts for the sky area used for deriving the DNI forecast. The successive green dots show the centroid of this area for the successive nowcasting
horizons. Every dot corresponds to a 1-min step in the forecasts. Note the first camera will provide forecast from 1 min to 25 min ahead, the second camera will provide forecasts
from 1 min to 21 min, while the third camera will provide forecasts from 2 min up to 28 min ahead.

for combining these predictions. The first approach (hereinafter Cam

Mean) consists in averaging the three individual nowcasts at each
forecasting horizon. This simple procedure, nevertheless, presents some
issues. The three forecasts might not be available for the whole forecast-
ing period (1–90 min) due to null values produced when pixels out of
the bounds of the image are requested. This is caused by the different
portion of the sky accounted by each camera when the forecasts are
issued, which is determined by the location of the camera and the
shared CBH. As a result, the evaluation station area might not be visible
in the images of every ASI at the same time. Therefore, for a certain
lead time, some of the cameras may not provide a valid nowcast. Fig. 6
displays an example of ASI nowcasting showing this problem. As can
be observed in the images, there is a difference in the portion of the sky
observed by each ASI when the forecast is issued. In this work, for the
Cam Mean approach, only nowcasts available for the three ASIs were
processed to obtain the average value.
The second combination approach evaluated in this study is based
on the concatenation of the nowcasts (hereinafter Cam Nearest). In this
case, for each forecasting horizon, one nowcasting value is selected
among the up-to-three available (one from each camera). The selected
value corresponds to the camera with the minimum distance from
the camera center to the pixel corresponding to the location of the
evaluation station. This ensures the minimum error in the image pro-
jection procedure, which can affect the forecast quality. Note that the
selected camera changes with the forecasting horizon and the clouds
movement. In the Cam Mean approach, the same CMV is used for the
three cameras and, therefore, just one CMV value is involved in each
nowcast (see Section 3.1.4). However, in the Cam Nearest approach,
the CMV from each camera was used. To this end, the same K-means
algorithm described in Section 3.1.4 was applied to the CMV field of
each camera separately. Therefore, 3 different CMVs are involved in
the Cam Nearest nowcasting approach at each forecasting event.
Fig. 7. (a) Example of a CMV vector field derived from MSG HRV images. The red
line shows the streamline of interest. (b) Example of raw streamlines derived from MSG
3.2. Satellite-based nowcasting methods channels 1 and 2 images. Images correspond to 2015-06-15 13:00 UTC.

The procedures involved in the satellite-image-based GHI and DNI

nowcasting are explained in this section.
3.2.1. CMV for satellite images and streamline algorithm
CMVs are derived for the low resolution images (MSG channels 1
and 2) using the OpenPIV algorithm [55]. A 41-pixel square searching
window is employed. For the images of MSG HRV channel, CMVs are
derived using the Deep Flow approach [50].
Unlike the case of the ASI-based nowcasting (Section 3.1.4), the
whole CMV field was used to compute the predictions. Then, the
streamline passing through the evaluation station for each forecasting
experiment (hereinafter streamline of interest), is obtained from the
CMV field by means of a method inspired in Nonnenmacher and
Coimbra [56]. The initial streamlines are computed using a Python
routine [57]. Each streamline accounts for the trajectory and velocity of
the flow displacement (clouds). The streamline of interest is computed
from the initial ones using an advanced iterative weighted averaging
method. Once this streamline is computed, the pixels located over the
validation station at each lead-time can be identified in the satellite
image. One-min time step is used to match the time resolution of the
prediction with that of the ASI-based nowcasts. Fig. 7a (7b) shows
the streamline of interest (raw streamlines) for a high (low) resolution
satellite image.

6
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al.
3.2.2. GHI and DNI satellite nowcasting
The Heliosat-2 method [19] is used to derive the GHI forecasts. As in
the ASI-based predictions and as a part of Heliosat-2 method, the ESRA
clear-sky irradiation model and the monthly Linke turbidity parameter
are used to this end. By using 1-min time steps in the streamline of
interest, 1-min time resolution GHI forecasts are derived. DNI predic-
tions are computed applying the DirIndex method [58], using as inputs
the GHI predicted values at 15-min steps. For instance, 15-min ahead
DNI forecasts are computed, based on the GHI predictions at lead-times
0 min, 15 min, 30 min, 45 min, etc.; 16-min ahead DNI forecasts are
computed based on the GHI predictions at lead-times 1 min, 16 min,
31 min, 46 min, etc.
Following the above-described procedure, 1-min time-resolution
satellite predictions are obtained, matching the time-resolution of the
ASI-based nowcasts. Nevertheless, there is still a mismatch between the
image upgrading time of ASI-based (1 min) and the satellite-based (15
min) nowcasts. This mismatch causes the latencies of the forecasts to be
different, limiting the comparison between ASI and satellite nowcasts.
To overcome this problem, the latency of satellite-based nowcasts was
artificially increased to match that of the ASI-based one. To this end,
and for every minute between satellite images upgrading (14 min),
nowcasts derived from the previous available image are used. The
procedure works as follows: at minute zero, when the satellite image
is available, a 2-h-ahead 1-min time-resolution forecast is obtained,
covering, particularly, period 𝑡0 to 𝑡90 (where the subscripts indicate the
forecasting lead-time). One minute later, at minute 1, no new image is
available, and previous forecasts from minutes 𝑡1 to 𝑡91 are used instead.
his procedure is repeated every minute until minute 15, when a new
satellite image is available and the process starts again.
Based on the former procedures, the satellite-based nowcasting time
resolution and their latency are increased to match those of the ASI-
based nowcasting, allowing for a better comparison between the two
approaches.
3.3. Smart persistence method
A smart persistence nowcasting model is used for benchmarking the
ASI and satellite based models. The smart persistence model uses as a
fixed feature the current ratio of the ground-truth measurement to the
corresponding clear-sky estimate. Every minute, at the corresponding
forecasting horizon, the prediction is computed as the product of this
current fixed ratio and the corresponding clear-sky future estimate
(Eq. (1)),
𝐼0
𝐼(𝑡) = ⋅𝐼 (𝑡) (1)
𝐼clear-sky (𝑡0 ) clear-sky
where 𝐼0 is the current ground truth measurement, 𝐼clear-sky (𝑡0 ) rep-
resents the current clear-sky estimate, and 𝐼clear-sky (𝑡) is the clear-sky
irradiance estimate at forecasting horizon t. The time step is one
minute. To this end, as in the case of ASI-based and satellite-based
nowcasting methods, the ESRA clear-sky model plus the monthly Linke
turbidity parameter are used. 𝐼 represents both GHI and DNI. This
approach ensures that the smart persistence model error at lead 0 min
(time at which the forecasts are issued) is 0.
3.4. Evaluation procedure
The scores used in this work are the mean absolute error (MAE)
(Eq. (2)), the root mean squared error (RMSE) (Eq. (3)) and the so-
called forecast skill (FS) in terms of RMSE of the Smart Persistence
method [59] (Eq. (4)),
1 ∑
𝑁
MAE(𝑡) = |𝐼 − 𝐼measured(𝑡),𝑖 | (2)
𝑁 𝑖=1 forecast(𝑡),𝑖
√ contrary, the multi-cloud type has the maximum number of samples.
√
√1 ∑ 𝑁
RMSE(𝑡) = √
(𝐼 − 𝐼measured(𝑡),𝑖 )2 (3)
𝑁 𝑖=1 forecast(𝑡),𝑖
7
Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838
RMSEforecast (𝑡)
FSRMSE (𝑡) = 1 − , (4)
RMSESmartPersistence (𝑡)
where N is the total amount of available samples and
RMSESmartPersistence (𝑡) is the RMSE corresponding to the Smart Persis-
tence model.
For the Cam Mean model evaluation, and given the availability of
four different predictions (one provided by each camera plus the mean),
a spread range is computed. This range is obtained, at each lead time,
as the minimum and maximum corresponding score derived from the
four nowcasts.
3.5. PV solar generation nowcasting assessment
Finally, the performance of the GHI and DNI models for PV solar
energy nowcasting is assessed based on a PV model. The GHI and
DNI measurements (taken as ground truth) and nowcasts from the
different models were transformed into normalized (capacity factor) PV
generation values using Eq. (5),
PV GHIpoa
= ⋅ (1 − 𝛾(𝑇cell − 25 ◦ C)) (5)
PMPV GHIref
where:
1. PMPV is the nominal power (maximum power of the PV cell
under standard conditions),
2. GHIpoa is the global irradiance in the plane of the PV array in
W/m2 ,
3. GHIref is a reference irradiance defined as 1000 W/m2 ,
4. 𝛾 is the temperature coefficient,
5. 𝑇cell is the operation temperature of the PV cell given by the Ross
thermal model [60]:
GHIpoa
𝑇cell = 𝑇surface + TONC − 20 ◦ C ⋅ , (6)
800
where 𝑇surface is the surface temperature in ◦ C and TONC is the nominal
operation temperature of the cell. Monocrystalline module ISF-145/150
features for PMPV (145 W/m2 ), temperature coefficient (0.00464 ◦ C−1 )
and TONC (45 ◦ C) were used. Available in http://bk.net.my/materials/
isofoton/ENG%20ISF%20145-150.pdf.
The GHIpoa is obtained following the approach of Liu and Jor-
dan [61], Iqbal [62] and Myers et al. [63] for a surface tilted or
inclined with respect to the horizontal and assuming the isotropic
approximation to obtain the diffuse irradiance in the tilted plane.
Two system simulations were conducted: (1) a fixed tilted PV system
with an optimal inclination (34◦ ) and (2) a 2-axis tracking PV system.
Based on Eq. (5), capacity factor PV forecasts, with one-minute time
resolution and up to 90 min lead-time, were obtained and assessed.
The same scores discussed in Section 3.4 were used.
4. Results
The results of the evaluation of the different nowcasting models
are presented in this section. The assessment was conducted separately
for each sky type (altocumulus, cirrocumulus, cumulus, stratocumulus,
multi-cloud and all samples) and for GHI and DNI. Table 1 shows the
number of samples analyzed for each sky type for some representative
forecasting horizons. Only samples available for every camera and
satellite method at a given horizon were considered.
The number of samples greatly varies depending on the sky type
and forecasting horizon. Regarding the sky type, cirrocumulus skies
are the poorest represented due to two main reasons: (1) this type of
cloud is relatively uncommon in the study area and (2) it is unusual to
capture the whole celestial dome with just this type of clouds. On the
This is not by chance, since the multi-cloud skies are the most common
in the study area [46].
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al.
The number of available samples usually decreases as the forecast-
ing horizon increases, mainly due to the fact that, for long forecasting
horizons, the pixel of interest is more likely to be out of the bounds of
some of the ASI images. Given this limitation, the assessment is carried
out just for up-to-90-min ahead nowcasts.
4.1. Assessment of ASI-based nowcasting combination procedures
The two procedures (Cam Mean and Cam Nearest) for combining
the three ASI-derived nowcasts (presented in Section 3.1.6) are eval-
uated in this section. Figs. 8 and 9 show the MAE values for the
two combination approaches, depending on the forecasting horizon,
respectively for the GHI and DNI. For the Cam Mean approach, the
spread of the forecast is also displayed.
The GHI nowcasts error values (Fig. 8) show, firstly, a notable
variability among the evaluated sky categories. Cirrocumulus (Fig. 8b)
and Stratocumulus (Fig. 8d) skies show the highest errors and an
upward trend. However, it should be highlighted that data sampling for
both types of clouds is low for lead-times longer than 1 h (41 samples
for cirrocumulus and 51 for stratocumulus clouds at 1-h lead-time,
Table 1). This can be explained based on the characteristics of these
clouds. On the one hand, stratocumulus clouds are low-level clouds
that tend to move very fast. Therefore, long lead-times forecasts are
unlikely to be obtained from the ASIs, due to their reduced field of
view. On the other hand, cirrocumulus clouds are high-level clouds,
which makes it easier to obtain forecasts at long lead-times, although
they are an infrequent type of cloud in the study area. Summarizing,
results at forecasting lead-times longer than 1 h should be considered
cautiously for these two cloud types.
Aside from the cirrocumulus and stratocumulus skies, for the rest of
the sky categories, errors are stable along the forecasting period. The
lowest errors are found for the cumulus clouds (MAE values lower than
150 W/m2 most of the time, Fig. 8c). Regarding the two combination
approaches, the Cam Mean model performs as the best for all of the sky-
categories evaluated and for all lead times. Nevertheless, differences in
performance are notable among the sky-categories. On the one hand,
maximum differences are observed for cirrocumulus (about 30 W/m2
at 45-min lead time Fig. 8b) and multi-cloud categories (Fig. 8e). On
the other hand, differences might be negligible for the cumulus clouds
(Fig. 8c). The results for the all samples case are similar to those of
the multicloud case. Notably, the Cam Mean model perform as the
best for all lead times. Nevertheless, the differences between the two
approaches are lower than in the mulitcloud case. The spread of the
Cam Mean increases with forecasting lead time for all the cases, and is
maximum for the cirrocumulus and stratocumulus skies. An interesting
feature in Fig. 8 is that the Cam Mean model tends to provide lower
forecasting errors than any of the three single ASI-based models (Cam
Mean forecasting scores tend to be located at the bottom of the spread
interval). Since the Cam Mean model is based on the averaging of
the solar nowcasts derived from the three ASIs at each lead time, this
indicates that the forecast error of the three ASI tends to compensate
each other.
DNI results (Fig. 9) are qualitatively similar to the GHI case, with
the main difference being the DNI nowcasting errors to be consid-
erably higher than their GHI counterparts. The differences are about
100 W/m2 , although they vary depending on the forecasting horizon
and sky type. As for the GHI, the Cam Mean approach proves to be
superior. Differences in the performance between the two approaches
are considerably higher for the DNI than for the GHI, especially for
the cirrocumulus and multi-cloud skies. In addition, the spread of the
Cam Mean forecast is also considerably higher than in the GHI case.
Nevertheless, as in the GHI case, the Cam Mean model tends to provide
lower forecasting errors than any of the three single ASI-based models.
For both the GHI and DNI, and for some specific sky types and
forecasting lead time, the differences between the two approaches are
negligible. For most of the sky types, this is observed at the beginning
8
Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838
of the forecasting window. The main reason is that, for these first
horizons, the pixels involved in the forecast are over the evaluation
station and at a similar distance from the three cameras. Consequently,
the forecasts provided by the three cameras are similar. However,
when the forecasting lead time increases, the areas of the cameras
involved are at the edge of the image. This is a challenge, especially
for clouds characterized by vertical development and sharp borders
(e.g., stratocumulus) or in multicloud skies. In these cases, the relative
position of the sun, the clouds and the camera may lead to considerable
differences in the cloud analysis for each camera image. In these cases,
the error compensation capabilities of the Cam Mean model seems to be
especially valuable. Unlike the other sky types, for the cumulus clouds,
the performance of both models are similar along the whole forecasting
window. This seems to be related to the nature of these clouds, which
show smooth borders and tend to move slowly.
Additional analyses (not shown) were conducted using other evalu-
ation scores (e.g., RMSE), and similar conclusions were derived. Given
the former results, only the Cam Mean approach was used in the
analyses presented in the following sections, which compare ASI-based
and satellite-based nowcasts. An additional advantage of the Cam Mean
approach is that it allows obtaining an estimation of the uncertainty of
the nowcasts by comparing at each forecasting horizon the predictions
derived from the three cameras.
4.2. Evaluation of ASI-based and satellite-based GHI nowcasting models
Fig. 10 shows the RMSE values for GHI forecasts derived from the
four models and for the different sky conditions.
As expected, a common feature for all the sky conditions is the
notable performance of the Smart Persistence model at the first fore-
casting horizons, after which the Cam Mean model tends to provide
the best predictions. Note that the Smart Persistence approach used
here ensures no error at the evaluation time (horizon of 0 min).
Fig. 10 also shows a notable dependence of models performance on
the sky-conditions. Overall, the highest RMSE values are observed for
cirrocumulus and stratocumulus skies (about 300 W/m2 at 45 min lead-
time, Fig. 10b and d), followed by multi-cloud skies (about 250 W/m2
at 45 min lead-time, Fig. 10e). On the other hand, cumulus clouds show
the lowest RMSE values. A notable feature is the remarkable spread
of the ASI-based nowcasts associated with cirrocumulus, cumulus and,
particularly, stratocumulus clouds.
For the altocumulus skies (Fig. 10a), particularly, the Smart Per-
sistence model shows an outstanding performance: the Satellite model
provides lower errors only at forecasting horizons greater than 20 min.
At lead-times greater than 1 h, Smart Persistence, Satellite HRV and the
Cam Mean models show a similar performance. For the cirrocumulus
skies (Fig. 10b), two break-even points can be observed. The first one,
between the Smart Persistence and Satellite models, occurs at 6 min
ahead, and the second one at about 20 min ahead, when the Cam
Mean algorithm outperforms the satellite models. Cam Mean is the
best performing model between 20 and 60 min ahead, approximately.
For the cumulus cloud skies (Fig. 10c), two break-even points are
also observed: one at about 3 min ahead, when the Cam Mean model
outperforms Smart Persistence, and the other one at about 9 min
ahead, when the two satellite models outperform Cam Mean. Note
the outstanding performance of the Satellite HRV model at forecasting
horizons greater than 60 min. The performance of the Cam Mean model
is particularly remarkable for the stratocumulus case (Fig. 10d), being
the best model for lead-times greater than 3 min. Nevertheless, the
high spread observed (the highest among all the analyses, reaching 100
W/m2 at 30 min ahead) reveals the challenge of the solar nowcasting
under these sky-conditions. For the multi-cloud sky-type (Fig. 10e),
the performance of Smart Persistence is superior up to 6 min ahead
(approx.). For the rest of the forecasting horizons, the differences in the
models performance are relatively low. Finally, when analyzing all the
samples altogether (Fig. 10f), Smart Persistence shows to be the best
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al. Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838

Table 1
Number of nowcasting samples available for some representative forecasting horizons. The values are displayed for each sky type.
Altocumulus Cirrocumulus Cumulus Stratocumulus Multi-cloud All samples
0 m 590 78 264 277 1040 2249
5 m 599 78 329 317 1151 2474
10 m 583 77 401 269 1026 2356
15 m 451 55 367 226 676 1775
30 m 342 48 216 129 231 966
45 m 226 45 183 84 198 736
1 h 142 41 183 51 169 586
1 h 15 m 135 37 176 29 136 513
1 h 30 m 134 27 176 20 105 462
1 h 45 m 125 23 171 17 93 429
2 h 6 3 11 1 5 26

Fig. 8. MAE values, depending on the forecasting horizon, of the GHI nowcasts based on the Cam Mean and Cam Nearest approaches. Values (in W/m2 ) are shown for the four
types of cloudy skies, for multi-cloud skies and for all the samples altogether. The light purple shadow describes the uncertainty of the Cam Mean approach. The uncertainty is
computed as the range (ASI-based-maximum, minimum) derived from four ASI-based nowcasts: the three single-camera and the camera mean.

performing model up to 5 min ahead (approx.), then, Satellite provides
the most accurate forecast up to 60 min ahead, after which Satellite
HRV shows the best performance.
In order to gain additional insight on the different models’ perfor-
mance, the FS score was computed for the Cam Mean and the two
satellite approaches. Fig. 11 shows the results for GHI. The skill of
the models varies greatly depending on the sky type and forecasting
horizon, as expected. The most noticeable skill values were obtained
by the cumulus and stratocumulus skies. For the altocumulus sky-
type (Fig. 11a), particularly, the satellite models show positive skill at
intermediate lead times, as well as the Cam Mean model at the end
of the forecasting period. Cumulus cloud skies show the most relevant
skill values. For lead times higher than a few minutes, all the models
show a notable positive skill, especially the satellite models at lead
times between 30 and 60 min. For stratocumulus skies (Fig. 11d) the
Cam Mean model shows notable positive skill values at all lead times,
and the two satellite approaches at lead times greater than 35 min.
Multicloud (Fig. 11e) and all samples (Fig. 11f) show modest but
positive skill for almost the entire forecasting period. The performance
of the two satellite approaches are particularly outstanding for the all
samples case.
4.3. Evaluation of ASI-based and satellite-based DNI nowcasting models
Similarly to Figs. 10, Figs. 12 shows the RMSE values, although for
the DNI forecasts. By comparing these figures, three conclusions can be
drawn. Firstly, DNI RMSE values are about 50% higher than their GHI
counterparts, although there are considerable differences depending on
the sky-type and model. Secondly, the DNI Smart Persistence model
performs as the best model for longer periods (from the beginning of the
forecasting window). Finally, the spread of the DNI Cam Mean model
is considerably higher. This fact shows the additional difficulty posed
by the DNI nowcasting.
For the altocumulus skies (Fig. 12a), and as in the GHI case
(Fig. 10a), Smart Persistence and Satellite models show outstanding
results. The performance of the Cam Mean model is lower than in
the GHI case: RMSE values are about 100% higher and the spread is
considerably wider. It can be concluded that DNI nowcasting under
altocumulus sky conditions is particularly challenging. The results of
cirrocumulus skies (Fig. 12b) differ considerably from those of the GHI
case. The Cam Mean algorithm shows an outstanding performance,
being the best model between 9 and 60 min ahead. Contrary to the GHI
case (Fig. 10b), the two satellite models provide a poor performance for
this lead range. As for the previous case, the results for the cumulus

9
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al. Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838

Fig. 9. As in Fig. 8 although in this case for the DNI nowcasting.

Fig. 10. RMSE values, depending on the forecasting horizon, for GHI nowcasts. The results derived from four nowcasting models are displayed: Cam Mean (ASI-based model),
Satellite (MSG standard visible channels 1 and 2 images based model), Satellite HRV (MSG HRV channel images based model) and Smart Persistence (data driven model). The
values (in W/m2 ) are displayed for six sky conditions independently (altocumulus, cirrocumulus, cumulus, stratocumulus, multi-cloud skies and all-samples). Vertical lines are
displayed every 3 min in the first 15 min interval. Purple color is used to describe the performance of ASI based model. The dark purple line is used to represent the camera
mean nowcast and the light purple shadow describes the uncertainty as the range (ASI-based-maximum–minimum) derived from four ASI-based nowcasts: the three single-camera
and the camera mean.

skies (Fig. 12c) differ considerably from the GHI case (Fig. 10c). No- most accurate nowcasts. Results for the stratocumulus skies (Fig. 12d)
tably, the Cam Mean model does not provide an added value, since for are qualitatively similar to the GHI case (Fig. 10d), although the RMSE
lead-times greater than 9 min, the two satellite approaches provide the values are about 50% higher. As in the GHI case, stratocumulus skies

10
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al.
Fig. 11. RMSE forecasting skill (FS) values. The Cam Mean, Satellite and Satellite-HRV models nowcasts are compared with those derived from the Smart Persistence model in
terms of the RMSE. FS skill is displayed as function of the forecasting horizon for each type of sky condition, as in Fig. 10. The same layout was used.
show the highest forecasting errors among all the analyzed cases, and
they also show the greatest spread for the Cam Mean model. The Smart
Persistence algorithm performs as the best model up to 9 min ahead
under multi-cloud skies (Fig. 12e), this is 3 min more than in the GHI
case (Fig. 10e). At lead-times greater than 9 min, Satellite, Satellite HRV
and Smart Persistence perform as the best models. Note that the Cam
Mean model performance is worse than in the GHI case. Finally, when
analyzing all the samples altogether (Fig. 12f), Smart Persistence shows
to be the best performing model up to 12 min ahead (5 min for the GHI
case, Fig. 10f). Then, Satellite provides the most accurate forecast up to
about 20 min ahead, after which Satellite HRV and Smart Persistence
perform as the best models. As in the multi-cloud case, the performance
of the Cam Mean model is worse than in the GHI case (Fig. 10f).
The DNI FS scores are presented in Fig. 13. Overall, the skill values
are considerably lower than in the GHI case (Fig. 11), although notable
differences are observed among sky types. On the one hand, and
similarly to the GHI case, the Cam Mean model shows a remarkable
skill for the cirrocumulus and stratocumulus skies, and Satellite and
Satellite HRV models for the cumulus clouds. On the other hand, and
contrary to the GHI case, almost no skill is observed for the altocumulus
and, more importantly, multi-cloud skies (Fig. 13a and e, respectively).
The cumulus cloud case results are particularly relevant: contrary to
the GHI case, the Cam Mean model does not show any relevant skill
(Fig. 13c), even at the first forecasting horizons. Only the satellite
approaches provide positive skill values. Finally, when all the samples
are considered (Fig. 13f), only a modest skill is observed associated
with the Satellite model at lead times between 30 and 60 min ahead
(approx.).
4.4. PV nowcasting models evaluation
Results of the evaluation of the models performance in the fore-
casting of PV solar energy are here presented. For a fixed PV system
(Fig. 14) the relative performance of the different models are similar
to the GHI case (Fig. 10). However, some differences are observed.
For instance, for cirrocumulus skies (Fig. 14b), there is an enhanced
11
Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838
performance of the Cam Mean model for capacity factor forecasting,
compared to GHI forecasting (Fig. 10b) at lead times below 15 min.
Similar conclusions can be derived from the analysis of the 2-axis track-
ing system forecasts (not shown). In general, result obtained regarding
the performance of the different models in GHI nowcasting can be
assumed for PV solar energy nowcasting.
5. Discussion
The first contribution of this work is the proposal of two methods
(Cam Mean and Cam Nearest) aimed at combining single-ASI-derived
nowcasts. The results from the previous section reveal that the Cam
Mean approach provides a superior performance. The proposed hypoth-
esis is that this result is related, mainly, to an error compensation effect.
The cloud detection process in the ASI-based nowcasting procedure is
prone to errors, particularly at the borders of the clouds, which strongly
affects the final nowcast values. By using slightly different images of the
same cloud, taken by the three ASIs, these errors can be compensated.
This compensation effect can be observed in the results (Figs. 8 and
9), as the Cam Mean model tends to provide lower forecasting errors
than any of the three single ASI-based models (Cam Mean forecasting
scores tend to be located at the bottom of the spread interval). Note that
the Cam Mean model is based on the averaging of the solar nowcasts
derived from the three ASIs at each lead-time.
Another contribution of this work regarding the ASI-based now-
casting is the proposal of a methodology to evaluate the uncertainty
of the ASI-based nowcasts. Results from the previous section show a
considerably higher spread for the DNI than for the GHI nowcasts,
revealing the higher uncertainty associated to the DNI prediction. The
results also show the spread to be highly dependent on the cloud type,
with the stratocumulus showing the greatest spread.
A notable feature observed in Figs. 10 to 13 is the remarkable
variability of all the error values along the forecasting window. This
feature is observed for all the models and both for the GHI and DNI.
For some sky types, forecasting error values increase as the lead time
increases, as may be expected. However, at a certain lead time, errors
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al. Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838

Fig. 12. As in Fig. 10, although in this case for the DNI nowcasts.

Fig. 13. As in Fig. 11, although in this case for the DNI nowcasts.

reduce or stabilize. For instance, for the altocumulus clouds, and both
for the GHI and DNI (Figs. 10a and 12a), errors increase up to 30
min lead-time (approx.), and then decrease. This variability can be
explained in light of the characteristics of the assessed dataset and
the temporal horizon of the forecasts. In particular, each forecasting
experiment is classified according to the type of sky conditions ob-
served at the time the forecast is issued. This feature is known through
the ASI images. Nevertheless, this does not ensure the presence of the
same cloudy sky type during the whole forecasting window (90 min).
For instance, in the study area, altocumulus and cirrocumulus clouds
tend to be grouped in packages [46], accounting for a relatively small
portion of the sky and with the rest of the sky dome cloudless. This
may cause the forecasting errors to decay after a certain lead time,
when, as the clouds move, clear sky conditions arrive over the area
of the evaluation station. To sum up, for these sky types, and along the
90-min forecasting window, patches of clouds tend to be followed by

12
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al.
Fig. 14. RMSE values, depending on the forecasting horizon, for capacity factor nowcasts for a fixed PV system. The system has a tilt angle of about 34◦ . The results are displayed
for four models and different sky conditions. The values are in capacity factor units.
clear-sky conditions, causing the observed variability in the forecasting
error values. Cumulus, stratocumulus and multi-cloud skies, on the
contrary, tend to appear over extensive areas. Then, the whole sky
dome is usually covered by the same type of clouds at the time the
forecast is issued, making the forecasting error values much more stable
(Figs. 10c, d, e and 12c, d, e).
The results from the previous section show that the performance
of the different models varies greatly among sky types. This is clearly
reflected in the break-even points, i.e., the forecasting lead times at
which some forecasting models outperform others. The break-even
points summarize the relative performance of the different models
involved in the analysis. The number of break-even points, their cor-
responding lead time and the models involved change according to
the variable (GHI or DNI) and the sky type. For GHI, particularly,
smart Persistence proves to be very competitive at the beginning of
the forecasting period in all the cases except for the cumulus and
stratocumulus skies, for which the Cam Mean model proves to be
superior even for low lead-times. Cam Mean performance is particularly
outstanding for the stratocumulus case (Fig. 10d), performing as the
best model from lead-times greater than 3 min. This seems to be related
to the highly complex nature of these clouds, characterized by sharp
borders, and the error compensation capabilities of the Cam Mean
model. In general, the Cam Mean model shows to be valuable only for
cirrocumulus, cumulus and stratocumulus sky types. On the contrary,
for the multi-cloud (Fig. 10e) and all samples (Fig. 10f) cases, the Cam
Mean model does not provide any added value. The Smart Persistence,
up to about 5 min ahead, and then the two satellite models, proved to
be superior. This result is relevant, since multi-cloud skies are the most
common cloudy skies observed at the study area (about 25%, [46]). For
DNI, similar conclusions can be drawn, although the Cam Mean model
shows lower importance than in the GHI case.
To summarize the results, the all samples case results can be used.
For the GHI nowcasts (Fig. 10f), Smart Persistence is the best perform-
ing model up to 5 min ahead, approximately. Then, for a few minutes,
Cam Mean provides the best results, and then Satellite performs as the
best model. For the DNI (Fig. 12f), Smart Persistence shows to be the
13
Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838
best performing model up to 12 min ahead, and then Satellite performs
as the best model. To summarize these results, Table 2 shows, for both
the GHI and DNI and for each of the sky types, the best performing
models for the different lead times. As can be observed, the Cam Mean
model contribution is valuable only for some cases.
The results also reveal that the Satellite-HRV model does not pro-
vide enhanced nowcasts compared to the Satellite model. Some ad-
ditional benefit is only observed for cumulus cloud skies and long
lead-times (60 min ahead) (Figs. 10c and 12c). The special features
of these clouds, which are relatively small (typically less than 300
meters in diameter), may explain this result. In particular, the nominal
resolution of the HRV images seems to better account for the spatial
variability of cumulus cloudy skies compared to the low resolution MSG
images, then providing enhanced nowcasts.
The results from the previous section clearly reveal the great chal-
lenge posed by the DNI nowcasting. Forecasting errors are considerably
higher and the performance of all the models is remarkably worse than
in the GHI case. Valuable model skills are observed just for some sky
types and forecasting windows. The Cam Mean model only provides
benefit compared to the Satellite approach for the cirrocumulus and
(to a lesser extent) stratocumulus skies. Satellite approaches provide a
valuable, although modest, skill for cumulus and all samples skies. For
altocumulus and multi-cloud skies, Smart Persistence provides the most
accurate forecasts at almost all lead times.
Finally, it is concluded that the performance of the different models
are similar in forecasting PV generation and GHI. Nevertheless, it
should be highlighted that the performance of the Smart Persistence
model for PV forecasting may be enhanced if the plane of the array
measurements are used, instead of the GHI data used in this study.
5.1. Comparison with other similar studies
To date, and to the best of our knowledge, the extension of the fore-
casting horizon of the ASI-based nowcasts and the direct comparison
between ASI and satellite nowcasts have not been addressed in previous
works. Nevertheless, some of the results presented in this study can be
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al.
Table 2
Summary of the models’ performance evaluation analysis. For both the GHI and DNI and each of the sky types analyzed, the best performing model at each lead-time is indicated.
Altocumulus Cirrocumulus Cumulus
GHI Smart persistence Smart persistence Smart persistence
up-to-15 min ahead up-to-5 min ahead, up-to-3 min ahead,
then satellite then satellite up to then Cam Mean
20 min, then Cam up-to-6 min, then
Mean satellite
DNI Smart persistence Smart persistence Smart persistence
up-to-20 min ahead, up-to-9 min ahead, up-to-9 min ahead,
then satellite then Cam Mean then satellite
assessed in light of the evaluations reported in other works. In any case,
the direct comparison of these results should be taken with care due to
the differences in the datasets (study area climatology, length of the
datasets) and metrics used.
Peng et al. [40] used a set of three co-located sky-cameras that al-
lowed extending the forecasting horizon of GHI nowcast up-to-15 min.
This method can provide improved accuracy compared to Persistence.
Nevertheless, the relative position of the three sky-cameras and the
validation stations did not allow obtaining a longer nowcasting horizon.
Alonso et al. [15] evaluated ASI-based point nowcasts for both GHI
and DNI at 1-min time resolution and on forecasting horizon up-to-3
h ahead. The results for the partially-cloudy skies that they reported
are in close agreement with the ones presented in this study for the
all samples case. Schmidt et al. [16] evaluated ASI-based GHI nowcast
on horizons up-to-20 min ahead. They reported almost no skill for GHI
point forecasts compared to Persistence, which is in agreement with
the results presented in this study. Alonso and Batlles [64] assessed
ASI-based and satellite cloudiness nowcasts at 15-min time intervals.
They found the performance of the ASI-based nowcast to be superior for
the first 40 min. Nevertheless, no comparison between solar irradiance
nowcasts derived from the ASI and the satellite images was reported
in this work. Moreover, Scolari et al. [65] proposed a method to infer
the GHI estimates from ASIs that were benchmarked against satellite
images derived estimates. The result showed the ASIs method to be
superior, with a RMSE relative improvement between 20 and 45%.
The ASIs proved to be superior, particularly during partly cloudy
conditions, when the satellite lacks the spatial and temporal resolution
to capture local changes in the cloudiness. These results are in close
agreement with the ones obtained in this study for the first minutes of
the forecasting window.
Other studies used real-time measurements for deriving solar ra-
diation nowcasting, instead of ASI or satellite images. For instance,
Lorenzo et al. [66] evaluated GHI forecast, up to 2 h ahead, based on
measurements collected in a network of sensors. The results showed the
method to have significant skill compared to Persistence for lead times
between 1 and 120 min. Similarly, Elsinga et al. [24] used power data
from 202 rooftop PV systems to derive short-term GHI and PV forecasts.
The method was based on the analysis of the variability of the power
associated with transient clouds. The author found valuable forecasting
skill usually between 5 to 8 min.
6. Conclusions
This work proposes several innovative contributions aimed at pro-
viding enhanced solar radiation nowcasting models based on all sky
cameras (ASI) and satellite images. Firstly, two methods for extending
the forecasting horizon of ASIs-based nowcasts are presented. These
methods prove to be able to derive up-to-90 min ahead ASI-based
predictions, with one of them including an estimation of the uncer-
tainty of these nowcasts. Secondly, methods for improving the temporal
resolution and latency of satellite-images-based nowcasts from 15 min
to 1 min are proposed. These methods aim to match the temporal
resolution of ASI-based predictions and are based on the use of the
streamlines of the atmospheric (cloud) movement. The satellite-based
14
Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838
Stratocumulus Multi-cloud All samples
Smart persistence Smart persistence Smart persistence
up-to-3 min ahead, up-to-6 min ahead, up-to-3 min ahead,
then Cam Mean then satellite then satellite
Smart persistence Smart persistence Smart persistence
up-to-3 min ahead, up-to-6 min ahead, up-to-9 min ahead,
then Cam Mean then satellite then satellite
nowcast reveals to be a valuable tool, providing competitive fore-
casts compared to the ASI-based nowcasts. Finally, predictions from
high-resolution satellite images were also evaluated.
These contributions allow to properly compare and assess ASI-based
and satellite-based nowcasts. The results of an assessment using a set
of cloudy-sky days, specifically selected for being representative of the
most challenging conditions regarding solar radiation nowcasting, are
presented. The results reveal that the use of ASI-based models provides
low benefits compared to the use of satellite-based models for point
solar radiation nowcasting. Only for specific cloudy-sky types the ASI-
based model provides enhanced nowcasts. Furthermore, the use of
high resolution satellite images does not provide additional benefits,
compared to the use of low resolution images, except for cumulus
clouds.
Given the frequency of occurrence of the different sky types in
the study area, the results suggest that the use of a simple smart
persistence algorithm, in combination with a low resolution satellite
nowcasting model, could be an adequate choice. Nevertheless, it should
be highlighted that ASIs, unlike satellite images, are able to provide
high spatial resolution solar radiation nowcasting maps. In applica-
tions requiring spatially resolved nowcasts, the use of ASIs may be
preferable. Satellite-derived nowcasts may overcome the important
challenges associated with the use of ASI based nowcasts, such as the
acquisition and maintenance costs of the sky-cameras and ceilometers.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Francisco J. Rodríguez-Benítez: Software, Methodology, Data cu-
ration, Writing - reviewing. Miguel López-Cuesta: Software, Methodol-
ogy, Data curation. Clara Arbizu-Barrena: Software, Writing - review-
ing. María M. Fernández-León: Data curation, Resources. Miguel Á.
Pamos-Ureña: Software, Visualization. Joaquín Tovar-Pescador: Su-
pervision, Conceptualization. Francisco J. Santos-Alamillos: Valida-
tion, Methodology. David Pozo-Vázquez: Conceptualization, Method-
ology, Writing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work has been financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy
and Business, project MET4LOWCAR (PID2019-107455RB-C21/AEI/
10.13039/501100011033), and by the Junta de Andalucía, Spain,
project PROMESOLAR (Programa Operativo FEDER Andalucía 2014–
2020 ref. 1260136). The authors thank Abengoa Co. (plant operators)
and Atlantica Sustainable Infrastructure Co. (plant owners) for pro-
viding the dataset used in this work. The authors are grateful to
EUMETSAT for providing the MSG data used in this study. The authors
are supported by the Junta de Andalucía, Spain (Research group
TEP-220).
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al.
References
[1] International Energy Agency (IEA) Paris. Market report series: Renewables 2018.
Analysis and forecasts to 2023. 2018, URL https://webstore.iea.org/market-
report-series-renewables-2018.
[2] Brouwer AS, Van Den Broek M, Seebregts A, Faaij A. Impacts of large-scale
intermittent renewable energy sources on electricity systems, and how these can
be modeled. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:443–66.
[3] Ela E, Tuohy A, Entriken R, Lannoye E, Philbrick R. Using probabilistic renewable
forecasts to determine reserve requirements. In: 7Th solar integration workshop.
International workshop on integration of solar power into power systems. EPRI.
Electric Power Research Institute; 2017.
[4] Martinez-Anido CB, Botor B, Florita AR, Draxl C, Lu S, Hamann HF, et al.
The value of day-ahead solar power forecasting improvement. Sol Energy
2016;129:192–203.
[5] Haupt SE. Short-range forecasting for energy. In: Weather & climate services for
the energy industry. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018, p. 97–107.
[6] Renné DS. Emerging meteorological requirements to support high penetrations of
variable renewable energy sources: solar energy. In: Weather matters for energy.
Springer; 2014, p. 257–73.
[7] Diagne M, David M, Lauret P, Boland J, Schmutz N. Review of solar irradiance
forecasting methods and a proposition for small-scale insular grids. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2013;27:65–76.
[8] Inman RH, Pedro HT, Coimbra CF. Solar forecasting methods for renewable
energy integration. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2013;39(6):535–76.
[9] Yang D, Kleissl J, Gueymard CA, Pedro HT, Coimbra CF. History and trends in
solar irradiance and PV power forecasting: A preliminary assessment and review
using text mining. Sol Energy 2018;168:60–101.
[10] Kazantzidis A, Tzoumanikas P, Blanc P, Massip P, Wilbert S, Ramirez-Santigosa L.
5 - Short-term forecasting based on all-sky cameras. In: Kariniotakis G,
editor. Renewable energy forecasting. Woodhead publishing series in en-
ergy, Woodhead Publishing; 2017, p. 153–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0-08-100504-0.00005-6, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
B9780081005040000056.
[11] Kuhn P, Nouri B, Wilbert S, Prahl C, Kozonek N, Schmidt T, et al. Validation of an
all-sky imager–based nowcasting system for industrial PV plants. Prog Photovolt,
Res Appl 2018;26(8):608–21.
[12] Marquez R, Coimbra CF. Intra-hour DNI forecasting based on cloud tracking
image analysis. Sol Energy 2013;91:327–36.
[13] Quesada-Ruiz S, Chu Y, Tovar-Pescador J, Pedro H, Coimbra C. Cloud-tracking
methodology for intra-hour DNI forecasting. Sol Energy 2014;102:267–75.
[14] West SR, Rowe D, Sayeef S, Berry A. Short-term irradiance forecasting using
skycams: Motivation and development. Sol Energy 2014;110:188–207.
[15] Alonso-Montesinos J, Batlles F, Portillo C. Solar irradiance forecasting at one-
minute intervals for different sky conditions using sky camera images. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;105:1166–77.
[16] Schmidt T, Kalisch J, Lorenz E, Heinemann D. Evaluating the spatio-temporal
performance of sky-imager-based solar irradiance analysis and forecasts. Atmos
Chem Phys 2016;16(5):3399–412.
[17] Nouri B, Wilbert S, Kuhn P, Hanrieder N, Schroedter-Homscheidt M,
Kazantzidis A, et al. Real-time uncertainty specification of all sky imager derived
irradiance nowcasts. Remote Sens 2019;11(9):1059.
[18] Blanc P, Remund J, Vallance L. Short-term solar power forecasting based on
satellite images. In: Renewable energy forecasting. Elsevier; 2017, p. 179–98.
[19] Rigollier C, Lefèvre M, Wald L. The method heliosat-2 for deriving shortwave
solar radiation from satellite images. Sol Energy 2004;77(2):159–69.
[20] Schmetz J, Pili P, Tjemkes S, Just D, Kerkmann J, Rota S, et al. An introduction
to meteosat second generation (MSG). Bull Am Meteorol Soc 2002;83(7):977–92.
[21] Kühnert J, Lorenz E, Heinemann D. Solar energy forecasting and resource assess-
ment. Boston: Academic Press; 2013, p. 267–97, Ch. Chapter 11 - Satellite-Based
Irradiance and Power Forecasting for the German Energy Market,
[22] Rodríguez-Benítez FJ, Arbizu-Barrena C, Huertas-Tato J, Aler-Mur R, Galván-
León I, Pozo-Vázquez D. A short-term solar radiation forecasting system for the
iberian peninsula. Part 1: Models description and performance assessment. Sol
Energy 2020;195:396–412.
[23] e Silva RA, Brito M. Spatio-temporal PV forecasting sensitivity to modules’ tilt
and orientation. Appl Energy 2019;255:113807.
[24] Elsinga B, van Sark WG. Short-term peer-to-peer solar forecasting in a network
of photovoltaic systems. Appl Energy 2017;206:1464–83.
[25] Yagli GM, Yang D, Gandhi O, Srinivasan D. Can we justify producing univariate
machine-learning forecasts with satellite-derived solar irradiance?. Appl Energy
2020;259:114122.
[26] Nouri B, Noureldin K, Schlichting T, Wilbert S, Hirsch T, Schroedter-
Homscheidt M, et al. Optimization of parabolic trough power plant oper-
ations in variable irradiance conditions using all sky imagers. Sol Energy
2020;198:434–53.
[27] Schmidt T, Calais M, Roy E, Burton A, Heinemann D, Kilper T, et al. Short-
term solar forecasting based on sky images to enable higher PV generation
in remote electricity networks. Renew Energy Environ Sustain 2017;2:23. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1051/rees/2017028.
15
Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838
[28] Jamal T, Carter C, Schmidt T, Shafiullah G, Calais M, Urmee T. An energy flow
simulation tool for incorporating short-term pv forecasting in a diesel-PV-battery
off-grid power supply system. Appl Energy 2019;254:113718.
[29] Anagnostos D, Schmidt T, Cavadias S, Soudris D, Poortmans J, Catthoor F.
A method for detailed, short-term energy yield forecasting of photovoltaic
installations. Renew Energy 2019;130:122–9.
[30] Alonso-Montesinos J, Polo J, Ballestrín J, Batlles F, Portillo C. Impact
of DNI forecasting on CSP tower plant power production. Renew Energy
2019;138:368–77.
[31] Antonanzas J, Urraca R, Martinez-de Pison F, Antonanzas F. Optimal solar
tracking strategy to increase irradiance in the plane of array under cloudy
conditions: A study across europe. Sol Energy 2018;163:122–30.
[32] Litjens G, Worrell E, van Sark W. Assessment of forecasting methods on
performance of photovoltaic-battery systems. Appl Energy 2018;221:358–73.
[33] Agüera-Pérez A, Palomares-Salas JC, de la Rosa JJG, Florencias-Oliveros O.
Weather forecasts for microgrid energy management: Review, discussion and
recommendations. Appl Energy 2018;228:265–78.
[34] Luoma J, Mathiesen P, Kleissl J. Forecast value considering energy pricing in
California. Appl Energy 2014;125:230–7.
[35] Antonanzas J, Pozo-Vázquez D, Fernandez-Jimenez L, Martinez-de Pison F. The
value of day-ahead forecasting for photovoltaics in the Spanish electricity market.
Sol Energy 2017;158:140–6.
[36] Dersch J, Schroedter-Homscheidt M, Gairaa K, Hanrieder N, Landelius T, Lind-
skog M, et al. Impact of DNI nowcasting on annual revenues of CSP plants for
a time of delivery based feed in tariff. Meteorol Z 2019;28(3):235–53.
[37] Zhang J, Hodge B-M, Lu S, Hamann HF, Lehman B, Simmons J, et al. Baseline
and target values for regional and point PV power forecasts: Toward improved
solar forecasting. Sol Energy 2015;122:804–19.
[38] Zhang C, Wu J, Zhou Y, Cheng M, Long C. Peer-to-peer energy trading in a
microgrid. Appl Energy 2018;220:1–12.
[39] Agoua XG, Girard R, Kariniotakis G. Short-term spatio-temporal forecasting of
photovoltaic power production. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2017;9(2):538–46.
[40] Peng Z, Yu D, Huang D, Heiser J, Yoo S, Kalb P. 3d cloud detection and
tracking system for solar forecast using multiple sky imagers. Sol Energy
2015;118:496–519.
[41] Sirch T, Bugliaro Goggia L, Zinner T, Möhrlein M, Vazquez-Navarro M. Cloud
and dni nowcasting with msg/seviri for the optimized operation of concentrating
solar power plants. Atmos Meas Tech (AMT) 2017;10(2):409–29.
[42] Gallucci D, Romano F, Cimini D, Di Paola F, Gentile S, Larosa S, et al. Improve-
ment of hourly surface solar irradiance estimation using msg rapid scanning
service. Remote Sens 2019;11(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs11010066, URL
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/1/66.
[43] Nouri B, Wilbert S, Segura L, Kuhn P, Hanrieder N, Kazantzidis A, Schmidt T,
Zarzalejo L, Blanc P, Pitz-Paal R. Determination of cloud transmittance for
all sky imager based solar nowcasting. Sol Energy 2019;181:251–63. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.02.004, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0038092X19301306.
[44] Tzoumanikas P, Nikitidou E, Bais A, Kazantzidis A. The effect of clouds on
surface solar irradiance, based on data from an all-sky imaging system. Renew
Energy 2016;95:314–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.04.026, URL
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148116303305.
[45] Long CN, Dutton EG. BSRN global network recommended QC tests, V2. x.
Bremerhaven: PANGAEA; 2010.
[46] Huertas-Tato J, Rodríguez-Benítez FJ, Arbizu-Barrena C, Aler-Mur R, Galván-
León I, Pozo-Vázquez D. Automatic cloud-type classification based on the
combined use of a sky camera and a Ceilometer. J Geophys Res: Atmos
2017;122(20):11,045–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027131, arXiv:https:
//agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017JD027131, URL https:
//agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JD027131.
[47] Gauchet C, Blanc P, Espinar B, Charbonnier B, Demengel D. Surface solar
irradiance estimation with low-cost fish-eye camera. 2012.
[48] Li Q, Lu W, Yang J. A hybrid thresholding algorithm for cloud detection
on ground-based color images. J Atmos Ocean Technol 2011;28(10):1286–96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00009.1, arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1175/
JTECH-D-11-00009.1.
[49] Hasenbalg M, Kuhn P, Wilbert S, Nouri B, Kazantzidis A. Benchmarking of
six cloud segmentation algorithms for ground-based all-sky imagers. Sol Energy
2020;201:596–614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.02.042, URL https:
//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X2030147X.
[50] Weinzaepfel P, Revaud J, Harchaoui Z, Schmid C. DeepFlow: Large displacement
optical flow with deep matching. In: ICCV - IEEE international conference on
computer vision. Sydney, Australia: IEEE; 2013, p. 1385–92. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/ICCV.2013.175, URL https://hal.inria.fr/hal-00873592.
[51] Brox T, Malik J. Large displacement optical flow: descriptor matching
in variational motion estimation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell
2011;33(3):500–13.
[52] Rigollier C, Bauer O, Wald L. On the clear sky model of the ESRA—
European solar radiation atlas—with respect to the heliosat method. Sol Energy
2000;68(1):33–48.
F.J. Rodríguez-Benítez et al.
[53] Remund J, Wald L, Lefèvre M, Ranchin T, Page J. Worldwide Linke turbidity
information. 2003.
[54] Urquhart B, Ghonima M, Nguyen DA, Kurtz B, Chow CW, Kleissl J. Chapter
9 - Sky-Imaging systems for short-term forecasting. In: Kleissl J, editor. Solar
energy forecasting and resource assessment. Boston: Academic Press; 2013, p.
195–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-397177-7.00009-7, URL http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123971777000097.
[55] Liberzon A, Gurka R, Taylor Z. Openpiv home page. 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.
5281/zenodo.2532806.
[56] Nonnenmacher L, Coimbra CF. Streamline-based method for intra-day solar
forecasting through remote sensing. Sol Energy 2014;108:447–59.
[57] Hunter JD. Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Comput Sci Eng
2007;9(3):90–5.
[58] Perez R, Ineichen P, Moore K, Kmiecik M, Chain C, George R, et al. A new
operational model for satellite-derived irradiances: description and validation.
Sol Energy 2002;73(5):307–17.
16
Applied Energy 292 (2021) 116838
[59] Coimbra CF, Kleissl J, Marquez R. Overview of solar-forecasting methods and
a metric for accuracy evaluation. In: Solar energy forecasting and resource
assessment. Elsevier Oxford; 2013, p. 171–94.
[60] Olukan TA, Emziane M. A comparative analysis of PV module tempera-
ture models. Energy Procedia 2014;62:694–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2014.12.433, 6th International Conference on Sustainability in Energy
and Buildings, SEB-14. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S187661021403464X.
[61] Liu Benjamin Y, Jordan Richard C. Daily insolation on surfaces tilted toward the
equator. ASHRAE J 1961;3(10):53–9.
[62] Iqbal M. An introduction to solar radiation. Elsevier; 2012.
[63] Myers DR. Solar radiation: practical modeling for renewable energy applications.
CRC press; 2017.
[64] Alonso J, Batlles F. Short and medium-term cloudiness forecasting using remote
sensing techniques and sky camera imagery. Energy 2014;73:890–7.
[65] Scolari E, Sossan F, Haure-Touzé M, Paolone M. Local estimation of the global
horizontal irradiance using an all-sky camera. Sol Energy 2018;173:1225–35.
[66] Lorenzo AT, Holmgren WF, Cronin AD. Irradiance forecasts based on an
irradiance monitoring network, cloud motion, and spatial averaging. Sol Energy
2015;122:1158–69.